Could the Catholic Church ever change its teaching on homosexuality?

[CopticChristian]

1. Not to take the seriousness away, but… what does IMHO mean? I always see it!
2. I am not sure of what to call it because I have never learned the names of the different types of fallacies, but I am pretty sure you made one by entering into some strange conflation of homosexuality and the “moral decay and eriosion” in the world. Or is that “correlation does not equal causation”? You obviously come from the strong belief that homosexual acts are indeed very much intrinsic evils, especially since you regard those who engage in them (i.e., homosexual persons) as connected to the “Population Control heresies” and today’s moral decay.
3. I believe in Eternal Truth and Divine Law. (I know you weren’t necessarily saying I don’t.) I do think that, as we can see from history, some teachings of the Church are current teachings that develop and change over time. But of course I regard the Church’s teaching on homosexuality as “current,” or else there would be no point in my having this thread.
4. In the original post I asked if the Church would ever change its teaching so as to not view homosexual acts and relationships as intrinsically evil. The development would get from where the magisterium’s official position is now to that. What that involves, I’m not quite sure. That’s why I had the thread. But plenty of people who are certain such a development could never happen have been helpful nonetheless in describing what developments would have to be made.

In My Humble Opinion, or IMHO…

jimmyakin.com/about-the-nazareth-master-catechism

About the JimmyAkin.com Master Catechism
I am pleased to present this integrated, hyperlinked collection of five historic catechisms. It contains the two Church-wide or “universal” catechisms the Church has issued — the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church — plus three “particular” or local catechisms of great historic influence — the Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Baltimore Catechism (4), and the Catechism of St. Pius X.

I found something for you…all the Catechisms are here to be found for you to look at…and you will find, as you say, what is said of Homosexuality may be thought of as current, however in the context of the 6th commandment, noting that it specifically addresses men/women in sin, it goes without saying that Homosexual acts could be understood as being grave sin, even though not spoken of…in prior Catechisms…

It would not be hard to understand, if someone were Homosexual, to see that these sins outside of marriage would mean that since Homosexuals cannot ever be married that any act would be exactly acts outside of marriage.,…

and here as well

catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality

Early Teachings on Homosexuality

 

[catholic1seeks]

That proposed change, however, would not be a development, but a complete reversal. That’s not going to happen.

If the teaching were to change, perhaps the change would not be a flat-out “reversal” because the teaching may have made sense in the past, based on the Church’s resources and cultural contexts. The homosexual question was never really big for the Church. It was never developed like the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception or even the numbering of the sacraments. Perhaps it could be viewed in the same manner as the polgenism/Humani Generis situation. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis said the view of polygenism is a view that is not apparently reconciliable with Catholic teaching. However, many theologians see in the alleged condemnation of polygenism a possible reconciliation. Similarly, IMHO , Homosexuality was never apparently reconciliable. The belief was not an issue. I do not mean the Church did not teach against homosexual acts–only that the teaching was not developed in a defining manner. But now with more resources and understandings, and views and experiences of people (which may be neglected on this forum but which are perhaps very significant), perhaps a similar development could occur. A change would seem obvious, but it would be to understand the actual Truth.

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #215
In the original post I asked if the Church would ever change its teaching so as to not view homosexual acts and relationships as intrinsically evil. The development would get from where the magisterium’s official position is now to that. What that involves, I’m not quite sure.
#220
Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis said the view of polygenism is a view that is not apparently reconciliable with Catholic teaching.

The first teaching comes from Leo XIII – Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is thus impossible – that mankind arose from many first parents – the fairy-tale which is perpetrated today by most evolutionists.

Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950
“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 1996, p 133-4).

It is futile to suppose the mirage that the disorder of homosexuality would ever be morally lived in mutual masturbation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And I am quite aware that for many Catholics this is “modern heresy.”

No. For any Catholic who understands and follows Catholic moral teaching.

But the point is this: It is not *current *Church teaching, hence the question.

Not past teaching, not current teaching, not future teaching.

It pertains to activity, not the reason for the activity. All the reasoning in the world, all the origins in the world, will not change the Church’s position on the immorality of homosexual acts. Acts. Not feelings, not the reason for the feelings,not the origin of the feelings, not a theory about the feelings, including new “theories of sexuality.” Not genetic dispositions, despite whatever genetic dispositions are found or not found.

Some psychologists think that gambling is a compulsion, not unlike other neurotic compulsions. (Certainly it can develop into one.) Some scientists think that some people are born with greater likelihood to become alcoholics. Doesn’t matter: the act of spending recklessly and irresponsibly is objectively grave moral matter. The pattern of addiction & substance abuse is a form of physical, psychological, AND moral disease. No matter how any particular person’s culpability may be lessened due to habit formation, living a grace-filled life in communion with the Church requires such people to abandon these activities, to repudiate them regardless of their cause.

The Church’s moral theology is not affected by scientific findings It never has been and never will be in the future. Otherwise, all bets would be off. Scientists might “find” that adultery is a good thing for a marriage. (In fact, there are some radical pseudo-scientists who have claimed that.) And the Church will declare adultery “good” when Hell freezes over. No matter how many scientists declare it be so.

You really don’t get this, I fear. The Church stands radically and permanently apart from the secular world in the way the secular world forms and does not form attitudes toward sexual activity, sexual “identity,” and the vary notion of a fixed morality itself. The secular world simply does not buy a non-changing morality, and as I said earlier, the position of a largely morally neutral modern world of science is that there is no positive or negative value attached to personal behavior. Behavior just “is” The conclusion, despite its insistence that it is value-free, is that (because science asserts that a human being has value), all that a human being does, or even drifts toward, must have positive value.

And, as probably Coptic or someone else can tell you, there is a deep hypocrisy in the scientific community, which acknowledges that mental illness, no matter how non-deliberate and out of the realm of choice it is, cannot be seen to have positive value, in general. Science has spent billions of dollars studying mental illness, from neuroses to complex pathologies, in an effort to eradicate, reduce, ameliorate, and cure. Clearly, by its actions, the medical community is showing an understanding of unconscious drifts and attractions as not all good, some of them being very harmful. Yet, when it comes to sexuality, somehow every impuulse a person has, must be good, and conversely nothing which is sexual could ever be bad.

There’s a great inconsistency here: a willingeness to apply a category of objective evil to some unconscious, innate behavior (or behavior of mysterious origin) but not other unconscious innate behavior (or behavior of mysterious origin).

Such inconsistency is only one of many reasons why the Church, in her contrasting consistency, would never rely on the scientific community to dictate to her as to moral categories, or even categories of objective good and objective evil. Morality is not relative in the Church – unlike in society. In the Church, morality is absolute.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say there is a difference between knowing one will procreate and one will not

Of course.

The Catholic Church isn’t so daft as to make couples not know when they are unable to procreate.

Again, the requirement is not that one must be able to procreate. The requirement is that the marital act must be ordered towards procreation.

“Knowing” is irrelevant. As I said, there is nothing wrong with a fertile couple engaging in the marital act during a time that they know she will be unable to conceive. That’s called NFP.

And I already told you how something can be “ordered towards” an end without achieving that end.

I am in need of fleshing out all of this teaching more. I have read Humanae Vitae, for example. Because I am not so sure if I fully agree (or at least understand) the Church’s construct here–on sexuality in general.

Keep this in mind: if we don’t understand something the Church teaches, the problem is with ourselves, and not with the Church. We don’t ask the Church to change her teachings to accommodate our views. We conform our views to Christ’s.

As Cardinal Newman said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

 

[CopticChristian]

If the teaching were to change, perhaps the change would not be a flat-out “reversal” because the teaching may have made sense in the past, based on the Church’s resources and cultural contexts. The homosexual question was never really big for the Church. It was never developed like the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception or even the numbering of the sacraments. Perhaps it could be viewed in the same manner as the polgenism/Humani Generis situation. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis said the view of polygenism is a view that is not apparently reconciliable with Catholic teaching. However, many theologians see in the alleged condemnation of polygenism a possible reconciliation. Similarly, IMHO , Homosexuality was never apparently reconciliable. The belief was not an issue. I do not mean the Church did not teach against homosexual acts–only that the teaching was not developed in a defining manner. But now with more resources and understandings, and views and experiences of people (which may be neglected on this forum but which are perhaps very significant), perhaps a similar development could occur. A change would seem obvious, but it would be to understand the actual Truth.

and you continue to struggle with the first part of the Catechism…

We believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…

This is your struggle.

 

[vsedriver]

Ask a homosexual Christian to believe the Church’s teaching on this issue–a teaching that calls his or her “deep-seated” attraction to be intrinsically disordered–without

 

[fix]

Fine, if you see people who are faithfully searching for a answer to their existance in the world putting people who know ALL the answers into a box thats your agenda. I don’t like label or judge anyone, well i try my best not to!

This makes little sense. Those that reduce their nature to being “gay” are the one’s not being open to the truth.

 

[fix]

How do they put people in a box?
How does the label magically define their entire identity?

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER

 

[CopticChristian]

If the teaching were to change, perhaps the change would not be a flat-out “reversal” because the teaching may have made sense in the past, based on the Church’s resources and cultural contexts. The homosexual question was never really big for the Church. It was never developed like the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception or even the numbering of the sacraments. Perhaps it could be viewed in the same manner as the polgenism/Humani Generis situation. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis said the view of polygenism is a view that is not apparently reconciliable with Catholic teaching. However, many theologians see in the alleged condemnation of polygenism a possible reconciliation. Similarly, IMHO , Homosexuality was never apparently reconciliable. The belief was not an issue. I do not mean the Church did not teach against homosexual acts–only that the teaching was not developed in a defining manner. But now with more resources and understandings, and views and experiences of people (which may be neglected on this forum but which are perhaps very significant), perhaps a similar development could occur. A change would seem obvious, but it would be to understand the actual Truth.

If the teaching were to change, perhaps the change would not be a flat-out “reversal” because the teaching may have made sense in the past, based on the Church’s resources and cultural contexts. The homosexual question was never really big for the Church. It was never developed like the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception or even the numbering of the sacraments.

Here is your dilema…

You are espousing The Social Construct of Homosexuality, that is used by Homosexuals to ascribe Homosexuality to an understanding and definition by Culture and the gay apologists that come to the CAF, usually point out this notion…

The Sacraments having been numbered and The Trinity and Immaculate Conception having been espoused…they are accepted because…

We believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…

You are aware that there are those that do not believe in 7 Sacraments and the Immaculate Conception and the reason is that 500 years ago, many chose not to

Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

and you know what that has done for those that deny that belief…

and here you are saying that the dileniation, the formal expression of the Church on Homosexuality within the context of the 6th commandment, Chastity and Morality…is different and has to change. It was always there. I pointed you to the Catechisms and somehow you continue to espouse a belief that causes you to struggle with…

Belief in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…

Reflect on those that come to the CAF suggesting that Saturday is the day of the Sabbath and the Church is wrong on this and many other issues or The Bible is all we need (Sola Scriptura) or Ecumenism by accepting we are all just one big happy family because we follow Christ, not united in the Eucharist…now when you consider how well those dialogues go in changing any Knowledgeable Catholics mind…imagine that what you are doing is no different and you may want to consider that the results will be the same…

You have a choice, as we all do…

Find a place that accepts your notions, and there are many, and forget about wrestling with the teaching, as these communities have no Aposotlic Authority

or

Reflect on what you can do to abandon what you believe is best for you and rather what is best for the Church…

Your choice.

 

[vsedriver]

I
But I do not see how God cannot guide the Church into a deeper understanding of sexuality, at the appropriate time,

what new information would be needed for the Church to change her teaching on human sexuality?

We already know that there are 2 sexes. We know that one is male and one is female. We know that they complement each other and we know that the marital act produces offspring. This is undeniable truth.

The only way around this would be if the church said homosexuals are a 3rd gender or not human. But they are not a 3rd gender, they are male and female and they are human. Therefore they are subject to the same moral law as we all are.

SSA is a disorder of the human sex drive. Doesn’t matter if they are born that way or developed that way. It is still a disorder. They are sexually oriented blind. Doesn’t matter if you are born blind or become blind after birth you are still blind.

Since 2 gender sexual relations are the natural order of things then single gender relations are disordered.

This is not a discussion about feelings, love, or personal happiness. This is about moral teaching AKA what is a sin?

It is not that Catholics aren’t sympathetic to the plight of homosexuals. But the main focus of any Christian is the relationship with God. God gave us a Church to help us maintain that relationship. “He who hears you, hears me.” The church isn’t teaching these moral truths to hurt people and to keep them from having a relationship with God, it is exactly the opposite.

It is the church’s responsibility to clarify what is a sin and what isn’t so that we may have confidence in our beliefs and behaviors.

As far as the ‘change’ in salvation outside of the Church. That teaching didn’t change only our understanding of what it is to be a member of the Church, Baptism of water or Baptism of desire. You can delve further into the meaning of Baptism etc.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

fix:

Yes, if someone entirely puts their identity as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” then yes, that is wrong.

It is not wrong, however, to describe someone as “gay”, “straight”, “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, etc. when it is used as shorthand for “This person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex” or “This person has same-sex attraction.” It is like saying “This person is left-handed” instead of “This person writes predominately with his left hand.” I find that in most cases, both heterosexual persons and homosexual persons tend not to define themselves by their sexual identity, and simply use the words the way we use phrases like “I am left-handed.”

 

[Kevin12]

I know this is a huge question. I know “change” and “teaching” in the same sentence is scary, especially when Catholicism regards itself as having a continuity of teaching. Please consider my question seriously, though. I want to have an intelligent conversation on this. At the very least, I think we can all predict there will be some development on the issue in the future, especially as society grows apart from traditional Catholic teaching. Even Catholics across the world tend to support LGBT rights, holding a view contrary to most of the hierarchy. This is not to say that cultural trends or majority opinion determine what is true; not at all, only that something in the “gut” of many in the Church sense something is very wrong with the Church’s current teaching. Many homosexual Catholics, for example, do not find true what many church documents say–that their relationships cannot express authentic love.

This question–whether the Church could change its teaching on homosexuality (specifically, whether the Church would regard homosexual relationships and acts as *not *intrinsically evil, and even morally acceptable)–brings into question whether the current teaching is considered infallible or not.

I hope a good dialogue starts. I do not wish for simple answers like “No, it will not change its teaching because the teaching is infallible.” I have taken this position in the past, not only with this issue, but for a variety of modern issues. And for core teachings of the faith, say, the Holy Trinity, it seems most obvious that God would guide the Church into truth. But it seems so arbitrary to throw out infallibility everywhere, even covering current or past theological opinions (Was limbo an infallible teaching? etc.) It is simplistic to view the Church as the “Infallible Church,” and this can cause one to disregard the disagreements and developments that have taken place throughout the history of the Church.

P.S. By asking this, I am not denying infallibility at all–just questioning whether the current position of the Church is true.

I think that the one implies the other, doesn’t it? If Church’s position on something is not true, it is not infallible, simple as that.

As for the example of Limbo, such a thing was definitely never official Church teaching, probably because there were some theologians like Augustine who thought unbaptized infants deserved the real pains of Hell. The teaching of the church is that those who die in Original Sin, even if just that, will go to Hell, and the fate of unbaptized infants was an extension of that. The Church’s position now is just that there is hope that God may have his means to remove the punishment due because of Original Sin through extraordinary means.

The Church does not say homosexuality is wrong, it says that sodomy and unnatural sex acts are wrong. However, homosexuality is a thing, and contrary to what many here believe, gay people are gay, they do not simply suffer from “same sex attraction”.

I suppose that it is possible the Church will be more tolerant of homosexual friendships, something like what Plato spoke of in the Symposium, or something like David and Jonathan were to each other, but even that is not the same thing as married love, since it would have to be purely spiritual love, devoid of eros. And even if such friendship were tolerated, they would by no means be given sacramental blessing.

As to whether the Church is right or not: I think it is. The basis of romantic and sacramental love is the difference between men and women and husband and wife. A marriage cannot have two husbands or two wives. Homosexuals probably suffer from a hormonal or neurotransmitter problem caused while in the womb, since the probability of it being genetic is low (such a gene would be selected out).

It is also likely that medical science will eventually determine the precise cause homosexuality and allow for treatments to prevent it for mothers who are most at risk of giving birth to homosexual children. Or, perhaps more likely, treatments that will generally decrease the risk of pathological problems occurring in the womb will also greatly reduce the likelihood of homosexual children.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

fix:
Terms like heterosexual and homosexual are irrelevant to Church teaching and so is race, but that doesn’t negate their existence in the minds of men. Sexual orientation is less of a construct than race as it is at least possible to delineate between the different types.

 

[fix]

fix:

Yes, if someone entirely puts their identity as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” then yes, that is wrong.

It is not wrong, however, to describe someone as “gay”, “straight”, “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, etc. when it is used as shorthand for “This person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex” or “This person has same-sex attraction.” It is like saying “This person is left-handed” instead of “This person writes predominately with his left hand.” I find that in most cases, both heterosexual persons and homosexual persons tend not to define themselves by their sexual identity, and simply use the words the way we use phrases like “I am left-handed.”

That is not what we are talking about though.

 

[Muze]

I think the one area where the RCC could find to develop is making a distinction between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual acts. The former is simply a condition of the mind that results in a particular sexual attraction. The latter is sin that is specifically condemned in the Scriptures.

Thus, the celibate homosexual would not be sinning for simply having a condition of the mind that creates attraction, and should be embraced by the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Church does not say homosexuality is wrong, it says that sodomy and unnatural sex acts are wrong.

It says that all physical sex acts between persons of the same sex are wrong: natural, unnatural, sodomy, oral, what have you.

However, homosexuality is a thing, and contrary to what many here believe, gay people are gay, they do not simply suffer from “same sex attraction.”

Nope. That is not the position of the Church. The position is not that there is any such creature within the species human being that is a subset of human being, or, “gay.” The Church declares being a son of God or a daughter of God is what is essential and true, through and through, about any human being. The essence is the humanity, not the sexual orientation.

There are not men, women, and “gay people.”
Nor are there are heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and homosexual women (4 subspecies).

That’s what the secular propagandists proclaim, and those lay Catholics in the Church that buy the propaganda. My sexual attractions and your sexual attractions are merely the sexual aspect of my self, and nothing else. They do not define who I am or who you are, more than that. Nor does my sexuality or your sexuality or anyone’s sexuality “control” the rest of their activity, behavior, understanding. Nor does one orientation (heterosexual) carry with it more self-control than its opposite (homosexual).

It is critical to understand the premises of Catholic philosophy (essence, substance, accidents, objective Good, the concept of Order, etc.) in order to understand the theology which is intertwined with that philosophy.

I suppose that it is possible the Church will be more tolerant of homosexual friendships…something like David and Jonathan were to each other,

There is no biblical evidence, according to any scholar of any Faith, including but not limited to Catholic biblical scholars, who interprets the relationship between David and Jonathan as an erotic one, or erotically inclined. This is what happens when does not consult the experts in ancient literary expression, and when one does not understand the cultural anthropology of the ancient Near East.

As to whether the Church is right or not: I think it is.

That’s fine, but your opinion and my opinion are immaterial to whether the Church is “right or not.” Either you subscribe to the authority of your Church to tell you what is “right,” or you do not. We are not the sifters of Church moral law. That has been determined for us, many centuries ago and for the future.

 

[aemcpa]

I think the one area where the RCC could find to develop is making a distinction between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual acts. The former is simply a condition of the mind that results in a particular sexual attraction. The latter is sin that is specifically condemned in the Scriptures.

Thus, the celibate homosexual would not be sinning for simply having a condition of the mind that creates attraction, and should be embraced by the Church.

The Church has always made that distinction, and states the following in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (which you might do well to read in its entirety as you probably have many other misconceptions about what the Church teaches):
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Kevin12]

It says that all physical sex acts between persons of the same sex are wrong: natural, unnatural, sodomy, oral, what have you.

I meant sodomy as a catch-all for those things.

Nope. That is not the position of the Church. The position is not that there is any such creature within the species human being that is a subset of human being, or, “gay.” The Church declares being a son of God or a daughter of God is what is essential and true, through and through, about any human being. The essence is the humanity, not the sexual orientation.

There are not men, women, and “gay people.”
Nor are there are heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and homosexual women (4 subspecies).

That’s what the secular propagandists proclaim, and those lay Catholics in the Church that buy the propaganda. My sexual attractions and your sexual attractions are merely the sexual aspect of my self, and nothing else. They do not define who I am or who you are, more than that. Nor does my sexuality or your sexuality or anyone’s sexuality “control” the rest of their activity, behavior, understanding. Nor does one orientation (heterosexual) carry with it more self-control than its opposite (homosexual).

It is critical to understand the premises of Catholic philosophy (essence, substance, accidents, objective Good, the concept of Order, etc.) in order to understand the theology which is intertwined with that philosophy.

When homosexuals say they are such, they aren’t talking about substance theory, nor was I implying such. I just think it is a silly euphemism meant to minimize the significance of the difficulty those who have to deal with it face.

There is no biblical evidence, according to any scholar of any Faith, including but not limited to Catholic biblical scholars, who interprets the relationship between David and Jonathan as an erotic one, or erotically inclined. This is what happens when does not consult the experts in ancient literary expression, and when one does not understand the cultural anthropology of the ancient Near East.

I didn’t intend to say they were - I said there’s was a purely spiritual love, and I meant that such is the only “same-sex” love that the Church would call licit (though of course, it has nothing to do with sex).

That’s fine, but your opinion and my opinion are immaterial to whether the Church is “right or not.” Either you subscribe to the authority of your Church to tell you what is “right,” or you do not. We are not the sifters of Church moral law. That has been determined for us, many centuries ago and for the future.

You know, I never said to the contrary, but when you frame it like this, you are really giving a lot of ammunition for those who say Christians and particularly Catholics unthinkingly accept the Church positions. The Church does not advocate Fideism. I also don’t know why you are putting “right” in quotations. You make it sound like we have no right to think for ourselves, or even that we shouldn’t think for ourselves, because the Church will think for us.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I think that the one implies the other, doesn’t it? If Church’s position on something is not true, it is not infallible, simple as that.

As for the example of Limbo, such a thing was definitely never official Church teaching, probably because there were some theologians like Augustine who thought unbaptized infants deserved the real pains of Hell. The teaching of the church is that those who die in Original Sin, even if just that, will go to Hell, and the fate of unbaptized infants was an extension of that. The Church’s position now is just that there is hope that God may have his means to remove the punishment due because of Original Sin through extraordinary means.

The Church does not say homosexuality is wrong, it says that sodomy and unnatural sex acts are wrong. However, homosexuality is a thing, and contrary to what many here believe, gay people are gay, they do not simply suffer from “same sex attraction”.

I suppose that it is possible the Church will be more tolerant of homosexual friendships, something like what Plato spoke of in the Symposium, or something like David and Jonathan were to each other, but even that is not the same thing as married love, since it would have to be purely spiritual love, devoid of eros. And even if such friendship were tolerated, they would by no means be given sacramental blessing.

As to whether the Church is right or not: I think it is. The basis of romantic and sacramental love is the difference between men and women and husband and wife. A marriage cannot have two husbands or two wives. Homosexuals probably suffer from a hormonal or neurotransmitter problem caused while in the womb, since the probability of it being genetic is low (such a gene would be selected out).

It is also likely that medical science will eventually determine the precise cause homosexuality and allow for treatments to prevent it for mothers who are most at risk of giving birth to homosexual children. Or, perhaps more likely, treatments that will generally decrease the risk of pathological problems occurring in the womb will also greatly reduce the likelihood of homosexual children.

Sodomy is a catch all for “unnatural acts” between two people.

The word you want is “homosocial” not “homosexual”. I did find that chunk of text amusing as at one point those kind of purely spiritual friendships were not just encouraged, but in medieval Christendom had it’s own sacramental (NOT sacrament, there is a difference).

It says that all physical sex acts between persons of the same sex are wrong: natural, unnatural, sodomy, oral, what have you.

Nope. That is not the position of the Church. The position is not that there is any such creature within the species human being that is a subset of human being, or, “gay.” The Church declares being a son of God or a daughter of God is what is essential and true, through and through, about any human being. The essence is the humanity, not the sexual orientation.

There are not men, women, and “gay people.”
Nor are there are heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and homosexual women (4 subspecies).

That’s what the secular propagandists proclaim, and those lay Catholics in the Church that buy the propaganda. My sexual attractions and your sexual attractions are merely the sexual aspect of my self, and nothing else. They do not define who I am or who you are, more than that. Nor does my sexuality or your sexuality or anyone’s sexuality “control” the rest of their activity, behavior, understanding. Nor does one orientation (heterosexual) carry with it more self-control than its opposite (homosexual).

It is critical to understand the premises of Catholic philosophy (essence, substance, accidents, objective Good, the concept of Order, etc.) in order to understand the theology which is intertwined with that philosophy.

There is no biblical evidence, according to any scholar of any Faith, including but not limited to Catholic biblical scholars, who interprets the relationship between David and Jonathan as an erotic one, or erotically inclined. This is what happens when does not consult the experts in ancient literary expression, and when one does not understand the cultural anthropology of the ancient Near East.

That’s fine, but your opinion and my opinion are immaterial to whether the Church is “right or not.” Either you subscribe to the authority of your Church to tell you what is “right,” or you do not. We are not the sifters of Church moral law. That has been determined for us, many centuries ago and for the future.

Is there such a thing as a natural sexual act between two people of the same sex? Sodomy is any inherently sterile sexual act , fellatio is sodomy regardless of if it is a man and a woman or two men, cunnilingus is sodomy regardless of it being a man and a woman or two women, anal sex is sodomy regardless of if it is two men, two women, or a man and a woman, also all of those are also still sodomy if there is an animal involved. In case anyone is wondering if there is any kind of sex that is not sodomy and is not vaginal intercourse the answer is NO.

Look, Elizabeth, if I said “I am gay” I would not in fact be summing up my substance substance, but rather an accident of who I am as it would not affect my soul just like race, handedness, political affiliation, favorite food et cetera.

Indeed no orientation has more inherent self restraint than the others.